Sunday, November 11, 2012

Arguing God with atheists

"What a fool believes no wise man has the power to reason away."

Arguing God with atheists is something I like to do - a lot. Both in person and over the Internet. It's fun and I've learned some things along the way: atheists come in different flavors. Not all of them are overt God haters. Not all of them are overtly anti-religion. Some are rabid leftists. Some are rabid anti-leftists. Some are quite intelligent. Some are very stupid. Some of them are somewhat likable... All of them are fools.

Never forget this: however many degrees they may or may not have, or say they have, when arguing God with an atheist, you're dealing with a fool. So, don't be a fool yourself. You and the atheist are not on the same level. While you may not be on a pedestal, he is definitely in a ditch.

When debating with an atheist, until there are compelling reasons otherwise, treat him as an individual.

Always let the atheist get nasty first - though you don't have to get nasty. When he does get insulting, then you're allowed to respond in kind. The choice is yours. It's been my experience that they usually do get nasty - and pretty fast. Most of them ARE bitter, nasty human beings. This is helpful though, because it means your atheist is emoting rather than thinking. Like a boxer who starts losing his cool in the ring, they become easier to beat when they get mad.

AVOID CITING THE BIBLE! Atheists reject the Bible out of hand and there is no common ground there for you and the atheist to come to terms. They see the Bible (or the Koran, as they hate Muslims too) as only a book of mad fairy tales for gullible children. Your problem is that it IS a book. Books can't be questioned. But even if you were to open a Bible and it started talking to them, they'd still find some reason to reject it. It's foolish to appeal to religion when arguing with an atheist. You must find other ways of beating him.

However the argument may develop, you must maneuver the atheist into philosophy. At its core atheism is a futile, irrational and anti-religious, religious system. It IS a cult - much as atheists resent that definition. Philosophy is a mental martial art that, when used correctly, will send the atheist crashing to the floor - judo like. This takes some experience as it involves setting them up, getting them to commit to a position, then using the momentum of their own reasoning to spring your trap on them.

At its core, atheism is a logical fallacy called, "denying the consequent". Denying the consequent proceeds thus: A. "If God exists then I would see Him." B. "I do not see Him." C. "Therefore, God does not exist." This isn't to say that many religious people don't embrace philosophical fallacies too, but ALL atheists do. Atheists like to posture as paragons of reason and intellect. The truth is quite the opposite: on the matter of God at least, they think illogically and often childishly.

They also like to confuse "evidence" (of something that supports *their* pov) with "proof". At the same time they will deny any evidence *you* bring to the table. They'll always demand that you need more evidence to "prove" your case. If you cite a book about a great miracle in Portugal, they will say the book is a pious fraud. If you bring pictures or video of the miracle to their attention, they will say, "they were doctored". And if they should see the miracle with their own two eyes they'll say, "it was an optical illusion." There isn't enough evidence in the known universe to convince such people.

They almost always, if not always always, resort to denigrating the theist (you?) as some sort of intellectual dwarf compared to themselves. They *love* to think of themselves as intellectuals. Religious people on the other hand, and especially Christians, they deride as mental midgets. Don't be surprised when they start saying how unintelligent you are. They always do. The more benign atheist may not overtly say that, but he *will* imply it. You are a childish fairy tale believer who imagines there's an invisible "sky daddy"... and is sooo unworthy of their valuable time (but they'll still spend *a lot* of time responding to you).

I mentioned "springing the trap" on them. This is very important and there are a number of ways of doing it. I like to dangle leading questions, in the hope the atheist will bite, and get it wrong. When they do, I pounce on it - then pound them with it. If they come back I just keep pounding them with it - while mocking their "jeenyus". Once you're able to do this they vamoose. Another way is to catch them in a grammatical error. For some reason this really infuriates them. If they say "your" when "you're" is called for, you can mock them for it, (because they all believe themselves highly intelligent) and they soon and angrily slam the door on their way out.

I always like to ask them,"can you prove there is no God?" Of course they can't - and it makes them angry to be forced into that corner. They'll reply, "No... it's up to you to prove there IS a God!" In fact, I can't recall one who's frankly admitted they can't prove there isn't a God. They'd rather be burned at the stake. Anyway, this flies in the face of accepted science and historical revisionism: those who contradict the accepted story are the ones who must supply their proof/evidence refuting it.

Furthermore, saying "There IS NO God!" is a declarative statement - no less than saying, "there IS a God!" Declarative statements demand back-up. The atheist simply tries to win by default, thinking, "If theists cannot prove their case then I win and there is no God who'll condemn me to hell."

Basically, the atheist is a spoiled child rebelling against a, "'sky daddy' that doesn't exist" - but whom he hates anyway.

17 comments:

Most of this post is a straw man fallacy. I don't know an atheist as you describe. They all believe there is no God, but they acknowledge that this is just a belief and not a statement of knowledge. Their arguments show God is unlikely, not impossible. Although atheists can also show that the biblical God specifically is impossible.

You've mixed up "denying the consequent" with "denying the antecedent". Denying the consequent is valid logic, while denying the antecedent is a fallacy. So, by saying that "denying the consequent" is at the core of atheism, you're saying that atheism is logically valid. That doesn't mean it's true, of course. What it does mean, though, is that if you don't like the conclusion, you must deny the premise. That is, you must deny

A. "If God exists then I would see Him."

because the form of the argument that proceeds from that premise is perfectly good.

I'll note that you undermine your own argument in this example:

I always like to ask them,"can you prove there is no God?" Of course they can't - and it makes them angry to be forced into that corner. They'll reply, "No... it's up to you to prove there IS a God!" In fact, I can't recall one who's frankly admitted they can't prove there isn't a God.

If the first word in the atheist's reply is "No", how can you say you've never heard one admit they can't prove there's no God? It sounds like you've heard them *all* admit it.

Declarative statement. "You're dealing with a fool." You are calling me a fool without having been properly introduced. I would like for you to show me proof that I am a fool. "They hate God!" I do not hate God in the same way that I do not hate unicorns or fairies. I cannot hate that which I do not believe in. "They hate Christians and Muslims," Another declarative statement. I do not hate Christians or Muslims or anyone that adheres to a religious belief. I have many family members and friends in my life that are Christians. I simply don't agree that there is compelling evidence to believe what they believe. "Your problem is that it IS a book!" (the Bible) So books are not allowed to be questioned? By the same standards then, Stephen King's book IT is true. How about Jonathan Swift's book Gulliver's Travels? Everything in life should be questioned, even holy texts. "Not enough evidence in the known universe to convince such people." If you show me peer reviewed studies that have tested the same miracle several times, getting the same results multiple times all accounting for variants etc. I will very much become a believer. I need empirical evidence. I consider no Christians, Muslims, Buddhist etc. etc. mental midgets. This is yet another declarative statement. There may be those who believe they are superior to those who practice a religious belief, but I am not one of them. So therefore this statement is false, not all atheists think in such a manner. You believe that I am calling believers names. Yet another declarative statement. Please, prove that I call believers names. Please, cite specific situations. Atheists get unjustifiably mad when our grammatical errors are pointed out. No, please do correct me, this is how I learn. I appreciate corrections being given. "Can you show evidence of there being no God?" Please check out a book by Victor Stenger called: God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. It's rather interesting. He gives some pretty compelling rebuttals against the God hypothesis, all using scientific methods of experimenting the claims. I am simply the type of person that requires evidence. I do not consider that to be a character flaw as you have alluded to. I prefer peer reviewed studies showing empirical evidence. Studies that have been made several times, all reaching the same result, again, with variables weeded out. Should you find some of these studies and would like to bring them to the table to be investigated, that would be a very interesting discussion. I very much enjoyed your post. It made me think, I like that. It's always interesting hearing how some believers think. It helps me mold my own world view. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

St Thomas Aquinas, to whom by comparison, Victor Stenger is an intellectual midget, has given some pretty compelling arguments for God's existence. How does Stenger address the age-old conundrum for atheists about the impossibility of something coming from nothing. This is a personal issue , I know; but Stenger, who is Jewish, is merely taking the line of a series of revolutionary Jews: Reich, Marx, Adorono Freud, etc, whose stated aim is the destruction of Christian society. For that reason, I have a healthy distrust of anything coming from a Jewish source.

I've no wish to attribute an unintended interpretation to Fitz's words, but I when he opines that atheists hate Christians and Muslims, he is speaking generally and from personal experience which is no way intended to deny that there are atheists who strive to maintain rational and cordial dialogue when debating a theist.Below is an example from the Hitchens thread of the sort of foul-mouthed abuse which theists, especially Christians, are subjected to on a regular basis from, usually young, usually male and always stupid and ignorant, atheists:

He had balls bigger than your brains,you are so fucking ignorants,you will die to,the difference is that you all wasted your life worshipping a cave man.Please use condoms,we don't need other stupid fucks in this world.

"Below is an example from the Hitchens thread of the sort of foul-mouthed abuse which theists, especially Christians, are subjected to on a regular basis from, usually young, usually male and always stupid and ignorant, atheists:

He had balls bigger than your brains,you are so fucking ignorants,you will die to,the difference is that you all wasted your life worshipping a cave man.Please use condoms,we don't need other stupid fucks in this world."

"Usually young, usually male, and always stupid and ignorant atheists..." So, does that make you a sexist old-cunt? Just curious, because the insult game is my specialty and you're failing, miserably.

Go ahead and prove for me that everything he said isn't wrong, by the way. Because I know you can't.

As Christopher Hitchens would put it: If someone tells me, "I've hurt their feelings", I'm still waiting to hear what your point is. Also, "The fact that some people believe in god proves that humans are capable of hallucinating without being under the influence of psychedelic drugs" and "It's called FAITH because it's NOT KNOWLEDGE". There's some more truth for you, that you can't handle, anyway.

When you have to go as far as to say something like, "Below is an example from the Hitchens thread of the sort of foul-mouthed abuse which theists, especially Christians, are subjected to on a regular basis from, usually young, usually male and always stupid and ignorant, atheists...", you're showing how much of a Social Justice Cuck you really are. How does it feel, MaryC, to know that the smartest people in the world are atheist white men? That's got to sting.

If we can't criticize the stupidity, the ignorance, and the immorality of religion then we wouldn't be able to criticize anything. If the Abrahamic god certainly gave a damn, he would have prevented them from speaking, himself. Seeing as he doesn't exist, it's impossible for him to have an opinion on the matter. Otherwise, this conversation, like so many others throughout history, wouldn't take place.

If you wish to defy the legacy made by the "Four Horsemen of the anti-Apocalypse" and many other atheists, then I have this challenge for you that no pious clown has ever done before: Provide proof for the existence of the Abrahamic god; since he can't do so himself. Prove that the Earth is 5777 years old, since he can't. Prove that he made a woman out of a dirt-man's rib, since he can't. Prove that newborn children having their genitalia mutilated is a good idea, since he can't. Prove that heresy is a real crime, since he can't. Prove that Jesus was his son, since he can't nor won't. Prove that any of the pseudoscientific claims within religious dogma are true and then you may feel superior. Until then, all you've done is proven that Christopher Hitchens had bigger balls than you do brains and that you'll die wasting your life worshipping a cave-man who never existed, just like his "father".

"How does it feel, MaryC, to know that the smartest people in the world are atheist white men? That's got to sting."

If you want to know how I feel, I feel that if you're an example of a typical smart, atheist white man I am justified in feeling quietly smug. You only further demonstrate your weakness of intellect by repeating your childish inanity re: Hitchen's balls.

If there were ever any existing god in the universe, especially one as mythical as the Abrahamic god, we would never be consistently able to ponder it's existence, in the first place. No one would ever have to make the argument for an entity that supposedly has the ability to do so on their own.

If you want to prove to the masses that your god exists, let your god do the proving for you.